AGENDA ITEM ...........5a...........
DR/26/11
committee
DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION
date
24 June 2011
MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT
Proposal: Retrospective planning permission for a composting facility to process
25,000 tpa of green waste to include the formation of 1.25 ha of hardstanding,
creation of a 1000 cubic metre storage lagoon, provision of weighbridge, office/staff
welfare facilities and associated landscaping
Site: Ashlyn's Farm, Epping Road, Ongar, Essex
Ref: ESS/20/11/EPF
Report by Head of Environmental Planning
Enquiries to: Shelley Bailey Tel: 01245 437577
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown
Copyright reserved Essex County Council, Chelmsford Licence L000 19602
DR/26/11
1
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown
Copyright reserved Essex County Council, Chelmsford Licence L000 19602
1.
BACKGROUND
Prior to 2005 the site was agricultural land and used for farm storage.
In 2005, planning permission ref ESS/62/04/EPF was granted under delegated
powers for a composting facility at the site. The approved annual throughput under
that permission was 6,000 tonnes per annum of green compostable waste (no
kitchen waste was permitted). All compost created was to be used at Ashlyns
Farm, with a skip on site to temporarily store foreign materials prior to their
removal.
Planning conditions attached to permission ref ESS/62/04/EPF limited the hours of
operation to between 0700 – 1800 hours Monday to Friday and to between 0700 –
1300 hours on Saturdays. Vehicle movements (in and out) were restricted to a
maximum of 10 per day. Stockpile and windrow heights were restricted to a
maximum of 3 metres. Operations commenced in June 2005.
In 2007, planning permission ref ESS/06/07/EPF was granted to increase the
existing facility’s processing capacity to 25,000 tonnes per annum. To
accommodate this, a concrete pad spanning 1.25 hectares and water storage
lagoon of 1000 cubic metres were also permitted.
DR/26/11
2
A new weighbridge was included in the permission and the permitted vehicle
movements were increased to 40 per day.
In addition, the hours of use were extended to include Saturday working during the
hours of 0900 – 1600 hours and Sunday working between 1000 – 1600 hours.
Development associated with the ESS/06/07/EPF planning permission has been
constructed.
Planning permission ref ESS/06/07/EPF included a requirement for the junction
with the A414 to be redesigned to facilitate a combined access arrangement with
the golf course opposite. A scheme was approved but never implemented by the
developer.
2.
SITE
Ashlyns is an organic farm covering a total of 545 hectares. The 4 hectare
application site is within the southwest portion of this agricultural holding. A shared
access onto the A414 with the organic farm shop skirts the western boundary of
the land, running alongside Reynkyns Wood.
Reynkyns Wood, to the west of the farmland, is designated as both Ancient
Woodland and a County Wildlife Site. In addition, the application site and the
surrounding land fall within the Metropolitan Green Belt.
The nearest residential property (White Gables) is located approximately 340
metres away on Weald Bridge Road, although there are two commercial
properties, a Travel Lodge and a motorist restaurant on the A414 approximately
150 metres away from the farm shop. On the opposite side of the A414
carriageway is the entrance to Blakes Golf Course.
3.
PROPOSAL
The applicant is seeking retrospective planning permission to bring up to 25,000
tonnes per annum of green waste each year to Ashlyn's Farm to mature it into
compost, for application on the surrounding farmland. Permission is also sought for
associated developments comprising the installation of a weighbridge; the
installation of a modular building for offices and staff amenities; securing of the site
and the creation of a pond (lagoon) for the collection of liquid from the process.
It is anticipated that there would be an average of 20 movements a day (10 in and
10 out) Monday – Sunday.
Proposed hours of operation are Monday to Friday 0700 to 1800, Saturdays 0830
to 1700 and Sundays/Bank Holidays 1000 – 1600.
This would effectively result in the composting facility operating to the tonnages
permitted by the 2007 permission but with lower vehicle numbers (but larger
vehicles) as permitted by the 2004 permission. The applicant proposes that this
would then remove the need for the previously proposed improvements to the
DR/26/11
3
junction with the A414. The application proposes improvements in the form of the
relocation of the hedge along the A414 Epping Road to facilitate the formation of
appropriate visibility splays.
4.
POLICIES
The following policies of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England,
(RSS), Adopted May 2008, Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan, (WLP),
Adopted 2001, and the Epping Forest District Local Plan, (EFDLP), Adopted 1998,
and Alterations, (EFDLP), Adopted 2006, provide the development plan framework
for this application. The following policies are of relevance to this application:
RSS
Best Practicable Environmental
Option
Flood Control
Water Pollution
Access
Outdoor Composting
Development Control
Protecting the Quality of the Rural
and Built Environment
Development in the Green Belt
Conspicuous Development
Adverse Environmental Impacts
Farm Diversification
Inappropriate Rural Development
Road Safety
Waste Management Objectives
5.
WLP
EFDLP EFDLPA
W3A
W4A
W4B
W4C
W7B
W10E
CP2
GB2A
GB7A
RP5A
E12A
LL2
ST4
WM1
CONSULTATIONS
EPPING FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL - The Environmental Health Officer
comments as follows:
Complaints have been received regarding dust, odour and litter through the
summer of 2010 and early 2011. This is reliant on wind direction. A statutory
nuisance has not been substantiated.
Green waste composting is supported in principle subject to the control of
emissions. Complaints had not been received prior to the present company
taking over.
Meetings described in the planning application were not specially arranged
by the applicant but were in response to complaints.
The reduction in vehicle movements is welcomed.
It is known that compost has been sold off-site.
The details on shredding equipment require clarification. This equipment has
been the subject of complaint.
Although the nearest property is identified as 280m away the land attached
to that property extends to within 50m of the site.
DR/26/11
4
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – No objection. Provides advice to the applicant
relating to the use of a septic tank.
NATURAL ENGLAND – No comment to make.
THE COUNTY COUNCIL’S NOISE CONSULTANT – No objection subject to
conditions covering the following:
Noise monitoring to establish baseline noise levels during periods of no
activity
Future monitoring to be carried out in wind speeds of no more than 5m/s.
The addition of a fourth noise monitoring location to include either Irenic or
Pollards to the east of the site.
In the event that noise complaints arise due to shredding and screening, the
plant could be enclosed with straw bales or similar, or the 1m bund could be
raised, or the operating hours could be altered to restrict working at weekends
and on bank holidays.
Comments that Spinney Lodge, the closest property to the haul route, shouldn’t be
significantly affected due to its location close to the A414 Epping Road.
THE WASTE DISPOSAL AUTHORITY – Comments as follows:
The Essex Joint Waste Management Strategy aspires to achieve 60%
recycling of household waste by 2020, achieved partly through the treatment of
garden waste.
The WDA has a 4 year Framework Agreement with the operator of the
Ashlyn’s Farm facility, which will end in November 2013.
A geographical spread of facilities improves efficiency, stability and
minimises transport requirements according to the Waste Framework
Directive’s ‘proximity principle.’
The recent closure of the facility at Stondon Hall Farm (Heatherlands)
means the WDA is in need of capacity in the vicinity of the application site.
An allowance of 40 vehicle movements per day would facilitate the authority
to deliver green waste to the site in close proximity to the source and would
contribute to the total green garden waste treatment capacity in the County.
It is estimated that 4,000 tonnes of waste will have been diverted to the site
from the Heatherlands site during the period December 2010 – November
2011.
It is likely that the authority will send between 15,000 – 23,000 tonnes to the
site during the period December 2011 – November 2012 but this won’t be
confirmed until September/October 2011.
THE HIGHWAY AUTHORITY – No objection subject to conditions covering the
following matters:
Heavy Goods Vehicle limit of 20 movements (10 in 10 out) per day.
DR/26/11
5
Completion of proposed highway/access improvements within 6 months of
the grant of permission.
Wheel cleaning.
Provision of space for parking and turning within the site.
Hard surfacing of the first section of haul route from the public highway.
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (Public Rights of Way) – Comments that no Public Rights
of Way would be affected.
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT (Ecology) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND
HIGHWAYS – No objection subject to the hedgerow removal taking place outside
of the bird breeding period.
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT (Trees) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND
HIGHWAYS – No objection. Keen to see the original planting scheme
implemented.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT (Landscape) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND
HIGHWAYS – No objection subject to the species mix for the hedging being the
same as the mix for the shrub planting, the replanting of the ‘re-located’ hedge as
hawthorn with 4 plants per metre, and the imposition of standard conditions
relating to aftercare and establishment of planting.
HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT (Archaeology) (ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY
AND HIGHWAYS) – No objection.
NORTH WEALD BASSETT PARISH COUNCIL – Object on the following grounds:
The site is detrimental to local amenity by way of smells, flies, dust and
noise.
Residents have noted which say the noise sometimes commences at 5am
and continues up until 8pm.
Ashlyns Lane is being travelled by waste-carrying vehicles up until 11pm at
night.
The ‘white noise’ reversing bleepers on machinery is detrimental to local
amenity.
Rubbish bags blow onto surrounding land and gardens.
MORETON, BOBBINGWORTH & THE LAVERS PARISH COUNCIL – No
objection.
LOCAL MEMBER – EPPING FOREST – North Weald and Nazeing – Any
comments received will be reported.
LOCAL MEMBER – EPPING FOREST – Ongar and Rural – Any comments
received will be reported.
6.
REPRESENTATIONS
DR/26/11
6
10 properties were directly notified of the application. 8 letters of representation
have been received. These relate to planning issues covering the following
matters:
Observation
The site has expanded in the last year.
Comment
See appraisal.
Flies, wasps and odours mean property
windows have to be kept shut and
gardens can’t be used.
See appraisal.
Noise from the shredding machine and See appraisal.
reversing bleepers is unacceptable. The
white noise alarms being used are no
better. EFDC are investigating.
The diggers create noise.
See appraisal.
Litter is blown to surrounding land.
See appraisal.
Dust is blown to surrounding land on
windy days causing health concerns.
See appraisal.
Dust gathers on surfaces inside
houses, causing health concerns.
See appraisal.
The Environmental Agency have visited
and commented the windrows were
higher than permitted, no galleys
between piles, no litter netting.
The Environment Agency has raised no
objection. The comments of the
Environmental Health Officer are noted
in the appraisal.
The Environment Agency visited in
February 2011 and found that
permission was not in place for
processing the quantities of waste. Why
was the site not shut down?
The current application is intended to
regularise activities on site.
The site does not appear to be
managed by trained personnel.
Not a planning issue.
A 7am start was noted on a Sunday
recently.
The developer has acknowledged this
as an unfortunate one-off incident and
informed the WPA of the mistake
immediately following the event.
Allegations of out of hours working has
not been supported with evidence.
Heavy farm vehicles have, however,
been witnessed during these hours.
Noted.
DR/26/11
7
The application is supported. The
operators have liaised with local
residents to alleviate occasions of
unpleasant smells. It is the only trade
green waste facility in the area.
Noted.
7am is too early for a weekday start
time.
See appraisal.
Permission to work 365 days a year is
unacceptable.
See appraisal.
There has been an increase in
throughput from 6,000tpa to 25,000tpa
in 6 years.
See appraisal.
Retrospective planning applications
indicate lack of regard for the system.
Noted.
Question why neighbours are not
consulted on the application when their
land is within 250m of the site
boundary.
The neighbour notification system uses
address points to determine whether a
property is within 250m of the site
boundary. The address point usually
relates to a building. In this case the
address point falls outside of the 250m
boundary although the garden falls
within it. The application has been
advertised in accordance with statutory
requirements.
The application has been advertised in
a Harlow newspaper but it should be a
local one.
Incorrect advice was given to the WPA
regarding the local newspaper. The
application was re-advertised in the
Epping Forest Guardian in accordance
with statutory requirements.
A site notice at the site entrance does
not make locals aware of the
application.
The application was advertised by site
notice on surrounding roads and by
notice in the local press, in accordance
with statutory requirements.
Quality of life is affected.
See appraisal.
The countryside should be preserved.
See appraisal.
The site is too near to properties.
See appraisal.
Access improvements at the entrance
to Ashlyns Farm have not been carried
out.
See appraisal.
DR/26/11
8
7.
Increased vehicle movements from 20
to 40 would be unacceptable for local
residents and increase accidents on the
A414.
The application proposes 20 vehicle
movements per day – see appraisal.
If this application is granted a further
application for more vehicle movements
is likely.
Every planning application is
considered on its own merits.
The original farmland has become an
industrial estate.
See appraisal.
Neighbouring properties have been
designed to be in keeping with the
conservation area, not the case for the
application site.
The site isn’t in or adjacent to a
Conservation Area.
Bioaerosols present health worries. The
Environment Agency is concerned and
is setting up independent testing with
the Health Protection Agency. The
consideration of the application should
be deferred until the results have been
presented.
See appraisal.
Residents experience breathing and
skin complaints.
See appraisal.
Sapplings planted to mitigate dust will
take 10 years to grow.
See appraisal.
High council tax is paid by neighbouring
properties but there is a worry that
homes wouldn’t be able to be sold.
Not a planning issue.
APPRAISAL
The key issues for consideration are:
A. Need & Principle
B. Green Belt
C. Traffic & Highways
D. Amenity Impact
E. Landscape Impact
F. Health
G. Flood Risk
A
NEED AND PRINCIPLE
DR/26/11
9
The National Waste Strategy 2007 sets out central government’s position in
relation to future waste management in England. The key objectives include the
need to meet and exceed the Landfill Directive diversion targets for
biodegradeable municipal waste. It also sets a target for reducing the amount of
household waste not re-used, recycled or composted and a separate target for
increasing the recycling and composting of household waste.
Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management
(PPS10), revised March 2011, puts forward the overall objective of protecting
human health and the environment by producing less waste and using it as a
resource wherever possible.
In addition, three of the seven key planning objectives of PPS10 require planning
authorities to:
-
‘help deliver sustainable development through driving waste management
up the waste hierarchy, addressing waste as a resource and looking to
disposal as the last option, but one which must be adequately catered for ‘,
-
‘reflect the concerns and interests of communities, the needs of waste
collection authorities, waste disposal authorities and business, and
encourage competitiveness’ and
-
‘protect green belts but recognise the particular locational needs of some
types of waste management facilities when defining detailed green belt
boundaries and, in determining planning applications, that these locational
needs, together with the wider environmental and economic benefits of
sustainable waste management, are material considerations that should be
given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be given
planning permission’.
RSS Policy WM1 (Waste Management Objectives) states, among other goals, the
objective to view waste as a resource and maximise reuse, recycling, composting
and energy recovery. It also requires weight to be given to the particular locational
needs of some types of waste management facility, together with the wider
environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management.
WLP Policy W3A (Best Practicable Environmental Option) requires, in summary,
regard to be had to consistency with the goals and principles of sustainable
development, the BPEO for the waste stream at that location, the waste hierarchy
and the proximity principle.
The Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy for Essex states an aspiration to
achieve 60% recycling of household waste by 2020. The Waste Disposal
Authority (WDA) has confirmed that this will be achieved, in part, through
treatment of garden waste generated by Essex households. The WDA has a
Framework Agreement with the operators of the facility at Ashlyn’s Farm, which
runs until November 2013.
Essex County Council’s Waste Capacity Gap Report 2010 indicates that there is
DR/26/11
10
presently sufficient capacity for composting but that there could be a shortfall in
the future, creating scope for further facilities in Braintree, southern Brentwood
and Basildon.
Whilst the Capacity Gap Report doesn’t appear to present a need for facilities in
Epping Forest, it is noted that the WDA has commented that they seek a
geographical spread of facilities to improve operational efficiency, provide service
stability and minimise transport requirements.
It is also noted that the composting site at Stondon Hall Farm (Heatherlands),
situated just over the Epping Forest border in Brentwood, has closed. In light of
this, the WDA has confirmed that greater capacity is required in the vicinity of the
application site. The WDA has also confirmed that a vehicle restriction of 40
movements per day would assist in ensuring the availability of green waste
treatment proximate to waste sources whilst contributing to the total garden waste
treatment capacity required within Essex.
EFDLPA Policy E12A (Farm Diversification) supports diversification on farms
subject to, among other requirements, the clear demonstration of how the scheme
would support the principle use of agriculture.
The applicant has stated that the compost would be used by the adjacent farm.
The existing condition 7 attached to planning permission ref ESS/06/07/EPF
requires no more than 20% of the annual processed compost to be exported from
the site. The site would therefore clearly support the agricultural use.
It is therefore considered that there is a need for composting facilities within Essex
and, in principle, the application site would be generally appropriately located to
meet this need, in compliance with RSS Policy WM1, WLP Policy W3A and
EFDLPA Policy E12A.
B
GREEN BELT
The application site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt.
According to Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts (PPG2) the fundamental
aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently
open; the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness.
PPG2 states a general presumption against inappropriate development, which is
by definition harmful to the Green Belt. Such development should not be approved
except when the applicant has presented very special circumstances to outweigh
the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm.
The statutory definition of development includes engineering and other
operations, and the making of any material change in the use of land. The
carrying out of such operations and the making of material changes in the use of
land are inappropriate development unless they maintain openness and do not
conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.
DR/26/11
11
PPG2 sets out five purposes of including land within the Green Belt, one of which
is to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. It is considered
that the proposed development conflicts with this purpose.
The proposed composting site includes operational development but is also a use
of land. It is considered that the siting of office/staff welfare facilities, a
weighbridge and the composting windrows themselves cannot be said to maintain
the openness of the Green Belt.
Therefore the proposed development must be defined as inappropriate
development and very special circumstances would need to be demonstrated by
the applicant to outweigh the harm caused by reason of inappropriateness and
any other harm.
EFDLPA Policy GB2A (Development in the Green Belt) states, in summary, that
development will not be permitted in the Green Belt unless it is appropriate
(following the principles of PPG2). The supporting text refers to the need for
proposals for inappropriate development to demonstrate very special
circumstances that outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.
WLP Policy W10E (Development Control) allows waste management
development where, among other requirements, the effect of the development on
purposes of the Green Belt are satisfactorily provided for.
With regard to the above, It is noted that the previous planning permission ref
ESS/06/07/EPF has been granted for development which is the same as that
proposed except that it allows more vehicle movements and requires additional
highway improvements. Whilst the grant of planning permission does not in itself
set a precedent because each application is considered on its own merits, the
arguments put forward in the associated Committee report are an important
consideration.
The Committee report puts forward policy support for composting in the form of
the European Waste Framework Directive, the European Landfill Directive and the
Waste Strategy 2007. It is also supported by PPS 10 and WLP Policy W3A.
The report makes a valid point that ‘as virtually the whole south-western quarter of
Essex, outside urban areas, is in the Green Belt and since the location of a green
waste composting facility within an urban area is unlikely to be practicable on
economic or environmental grounds, it is difficult to envisage a location for such a
facility that would not be in the Green Belt.’
WLP Policy W7B (Outdoor Composting) supports outdoor waste composting at
several locations including where the compost is to be used as part of a
reclamation process on adjoining land, providing the development complies with
other policies in the Plan and is not detrimental to residential amenity or the rural
character.
The applicant has also stated that there is a need for the compost product in the
operation of the adjacent organic farm. The farm it is unable to apply artificial
DR/26/11
12
fertiliser due to its organic status.
Given that the locational needs for the facility are supported by the WDA, now as
they were during consideration of application ref ESS/06/07/EPF, and that the
needs of the adjacent organic farm have been presented, it is considered that
very special circumstances have been put forward by the applicant to outweigh
the harm caused to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness. The
development would therefore comply with EFDLPA Policy GB2A and the
locational requirements of WLP Policy W7B. The amenity and character
requirements of this policy will be considered later in the report.
EFDLPA Policy GB7A (Conspicuous Development) requires the refusal of
planning applications for development conspicuous from within or beyond the
Green Belt which would have an excessive adverse impact on the openness, rural
character or visual amenities of the Green Belt. These factors will be considered
later in the report.
C
TRAFFIC AND HIGHWAYS
WLP Policy W4C (Access) requires, in summary, access for waste management
sites to normally be by a short length of existing road to the main highway network
consisting of regional routes and County/urban distributors, via a suitable existing
junction, improved if required to the satisfaction of the highway authority.
The proposal site is already in existence with an access onto the A414 Epping
Road, which is a regional route.
WLP Policy W10E (Development Control) allows waste management
development where, among other requirements, the impact of road traffic
generated by the development on the highway network has been satisfactorily
provided for.
EFDLPA Policy ST4 (Road Safety) allows new development only when the
proposal is well related to the road hierarchy, is unlikely to lead to excessive
congestion, and is unlikely to result in excessive adverse effects on the character
or environment as a result of traffic, or when measures to mitigate road safety
implications can be adopted. It goes on to state that legal agreements may be
required to facilitate alterations to the public highway.
A transport report has been submitted with the application. It seeks to provide
information in support of an alternative scheme to the previously permitted
dedicated right turn lane.
The scheme would involve the effective increase of vehicle movements to the site
from 10 (permitted under ref ESS/62/04/EPF) to 20 per day. The report
acknowledges that the site has been operating at or in excess of 20 movements
per day in the recent past, in excess of the permitted 10 movements.
Deliveries to the site are stated to have been in refuse collection vehicles with an
average load of 8 tonnes, and from Local Authority civic amenity sites in road
DR/26/11
13
trains with an average load of 16 tonnes. The report has found that between the
months of July and November 2010 the average load of vehicles entering the site
was not less than 9 tonnes.
The WDA anticipates sending between 15,000 – 23,000 tonnes of material to the
site between December 2011 and November 2012.
The proposed access improvements aim to achieve appropriate visibility splays in
accordance with the speed of vehicles travelling along the A414. Sight lines of
4.5m x 160m can be achieved in both directions by removing sections of
hedgerow and replacing it further back, in accordance with EFDLPA Policy ST4.
The Landscape Officer has recommended that the new hedge is planted as
hawthorn with 4 plants per metre. The applicant has agreed to this specification
and confirmed that planting will take place in Autumn 2011.
It is noted that the Ecologist has recommended that the removal of the hedge
takes place outside of the bird breeding season. It is therefore considered
appropriate to impose a condition to that effect, in the event that planning
permission is granted.
The Highway Authority has no objection to the application subject to the
imposition of conditions.
The application is therefore considered to comply with WLP Policies W4C and
W10E.
D
AMENITY IMPACT
As stated previously in the report, WLP Policy W7B supports outdoor waste
composting at several locations including where the compost is to be used as part
of a reclamation process on adjoining land, providing the development complies
with other policies in the Plan and is not detrimental to residential amenity or the
rural character.
WLP Policy W10E permits waste management development where the effect of
that development on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, particularly from
noise, smell, dust and other potential pollutants, have been satisfactorily provided
for.
EFDLPA Policy RP5A (Adverse Environmental Impacts), in summary, does not
permit development where it would cause excessive noise, vibration, air, ground
water or light pollution for neighbouring land uses, except where the effects can
be mitigated by the imposition of conditions.
A representation has been received regarding the perceived expansion of the site
in the last year. This is true in that the infrastructure associated with planning
permission ref ESS/06/07/EPF has been implemented in full. There was also an
input of some 18,000 tonnes of waste between 1st January – 31st December 2010,
in excess of the 6,000 tpa permitted by planning permission ref ESS/62/04/EPF.
The current application is submitted in order to regularise development at the site.
DR/26/11
14
Representations have been received relating to noise, dust and litter impacts from
the development on the occupants of surrounding residential properties.
Noise: The site has several operations which have the potential to generate
noise.
Traffic associated with the importation of waste could generate noise. It is noted
that the County Council’s Noise Consultant has commented that Spinney Lodge,
the closest property to the haul route, shouldn’t be significantly affected due to its
location close to the A414 Epping Road.
Once material has been received at the site it is shredded and formed into a
windrow (typically 15m long by 4m wide by 3m high) on the concrete composting
area. The shredder is capable of shredding 30 tonnes per hour and would
typically run for 4-5 hours per day Monday-Friday.
The windrows are turned regularly and are mature after approximately 12 weeks.
Compost is then screened to remove oversize woody material and other material
such as plastic. The compost is then stockpiled until the farmer is ready to spread
it on the farm.
The WPA is aware that the Environmental Health Officer at Harlow District Council
is monitoring noise arising from the application site.
The noise conditions imposed on application ref ESS/06/07/EPF relate to noise
limits at neighbouring noise sensitive properties and noise monitoring. There is
also a condition restricting operating hours. The proposed hours of working are
longer on Saturdays.
The County Council’s noise consultant has no objection subject to similar
conditions and the addition of a further monitoring site. The consultant also
comments that the shredder/screener could be enclosed with straw bales or
similar, or the 1m bund could be raised, or the operating hours could be restricted,
in the event that noise complaints are received.
Considering that there have been representations received relating to noise
impact, it is considered inappropriate to allow increased working hours on
Saturdays in relation to the previous planning permission. It is considered that
working hours should therefore be restricted to:
0700 – 1800 hours Monday to Friday
0900 – 1600 hours Saturdays
1000 – 1600 hours on Sundays
And at no other times or on Bank or Public Holidays.
This would accord with planning permission ref ESS/06/07/EPF.
With regard to representations received relating to working hours, it is noted that
DR/26/11
15
the weekday start time of 0700 hours is in accordance with the standard operating
conditions usually imposed by the Waste Planning Authority. It is also noted that
working would not be allowed on Bank or Public Holidays, resulting in less than
365 days per year working.
The remaining previously imposed noise restrictions are considered appropriate to
re-impose with the addition of a further monitoring position to the east of the site.
Odour: The regular turning of the windrows mentioned previously should serve to
keep odours at a minimum. This prevents the material from becoming anaerobic,
which would give the opportunity for offensive odours, rather than the mild woody
odour which should be associated with composting operations.
The applicant has stated that the site is monitored to ensure the correct moisture
content is maintained. Shredding also allows the process to be aerobic, but where
there are odour issues an organic enzyme can be added to reduce the strength of
the odour.
The applicant has stated that the site has an odour management plan which is
updated regularly.
Dust: The applicant has stated that the site benefits from a Waste Management
Licence issued by the Environment Agency. The Licence requires that the site
does not generate a nuisance due to dust.
The applicant has also confirmed that before any activities start in the morning the
whole working area is wetted. Water is then re-applied when necessary to
minimise dust.
However, given the concerns raised by local residents it is considered appropriate
that a scheme for dust mitigation is required by condition in the event that
planning permission is granted.
In response to the comment regarding the saplings, the planting was approved as
part of the previous application at the bottom of the bund. This was intended as a
visual softening of the bund and site when viewed from the north, not as dust
mitigation.
Visual: The windrows associated with the composting development are currently
permitted at up to 3m in height. The bund surrounding the development is 3m in
height at its highest point. There is also a 1.2m high chain-link fence surrounding
the site and a 1.8m high chain link fence surrounding the storage lagoon.
A landscaping scheme has been approved under the existing planning
permission. The current details reflect the approved scheme, it is therefore
considered unnecessary to require a further landscaping scheme; however a
condition relating to maintenance could be imposed should planning permission
be granted.
The site is relatively remote. The nearest residential property is located at White
DR/26/11
16
Gables, approximately 340m to the north east on Weald Bridge Road, with further
properties located further south along the same road and at Irenic, approximately
400m to the west along Ashlyns Lane. The Travel Lodge hotel located on the
A414 is 2 storey in height, however it has intermittent views of the composting
area and only a small number of rooms face the haul route itself.
It is therefore considered that views to the site would be minimal, the landscape
scheme would assist in softening views, and the minimal views of the site would
affect a relatively small number of properties.
Pests and litter: The applicant has confirmed that there is a litter picker on site for
2 days per week who checks the perimeter of the site and tidies the actual site.
The applicant also makes use of a windsifter which removes plastic from the
screener. Although not required by the planning permission the applicant also
plans to plant additional trees part way down the bank on the northern bund,
which would assist in reducing wind across the site.
With regard to flies, the applicant has confirmed that if there is a particular issue
with flies in any windrow a fly killer (approved for use on organic farms) is used in
a mobile mister, which is effective at reducing fly numbers.
It is therefore considered that the proposed development could be adequately
controlled by the imposition of suitable conditions, in accordance with WLP
Policies W7B and W10E and EFDLPA Policy RP5A. The Environment Agency’s
permitting process would also provide additional control to complement Planning
requirements.
E
LANDSCAPE IMPACT
EFDLPA Policy CP2 (Protecting the Quality of the Rural and Built Environment), in
summary and among other requirements, requires the quality of the rural
environment to be maintained, conserved and improved by sustaining and
enhancing the rural environment, conserving countryside character and protecting
the countryside for its own sake.
EFDLP Policy LL2 (Inappropriate Rural Development) states that planning
permission will not be granted for development in the countryside unless it
respects the character and/or enhances the appearance and, where appropriate,
involves the management of the remainder of the site to enhance its contribution
to the landscape.
EFDLPA Policy GB7A (Conspicuous Development) does not allow development
conspicuous from within or beyond the Green Belt which would have excessive
adverse impact on the openness, rural character or visual amenities of the Green
Belt.
Composting operations are considered to be more akin to a rural development in
nature, particularly when in association with on-site farms, as in this case.
However, it is acknowledged that the application is for development which would
generate heavy traffic movements and introduces operational development in the
DR/26/11
17
countryside.
The site is well screened by existing vegetation, including Reynkyns Wood to the
west, although it is noted that there is a view to the site from Weald Bridge Road
from a small gap in the hedge.
There is a bund already located around the operational area of the site which
assists in screening the operations from all directions. Planting associated with
permission ref ESS/06/07/EPF has been largely completed, with remaining
planting proposed to be carried out in autumn 2011.
Green Belt considerations have been discussed previously in the report.
It is therefore considered that the proposed development would conserve
countryside character and would significantly affect visual amenities, in
accordance with EFDLP Policy LL2 and EFDLPA Policies CP2 and GB7A.
F
HEALTH
The Environment Agency controls bioaerosols. It is noted that no objection has
been raised by the Environment Agency.
There are no properties within 250m of the boundary of the site; however the land
associated with Irenic Orchard to the east lies within 40m of the site.
The Environment Agency has issued a position statement (Nov 2010) which sets
out interim guidance for sites within 250m of a sensitive receptor. Gardens are
classed as a sensitive receptor.
The Environment Agency is aware of the proximity of surrounding dwellings. It has
been confirmed that a bioaerosol assessment is not currently required by the
waste management licence held by the site operators.
The requirements of the waste management licence are being reviewed by the
Environment Agency. Bioaerosols are an Environment Agency responsibility and it
is therefore considered appropriate that this issue is not duplicated by Planning
requirements.
G
FLOOD RISK
The application site is located with Flood Zone 1, the low probability risk zone as
defined by Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk.
WLP Policy W4A (Flood Control), in summary, permits waste management
development where there would be no adverse effect on flooding or the water
environment. WLP Policy W4B (Water Pollution) permits waste management
development only where there would not be unacceptable risk to
surface/groundwater quality or flow.
The Environment Agency has confirmed that, bearing in mind that details of a
DR/26/11
18
surface water drainage scheme have been discharged as part of planning
application ref ESS/06/07/EPF, there would be no need to re-impose such a
condition again, should planning permission be granted. However, it is considered
that it would be appropriate to impose a condition relating to surface water
drainage because the approved details have not been submitted with the current
application.
The composting process produces a leachate which is potentially harmful to land.
A concrete pad and water storage lagoon have already been constructed in order
to prevent contamination of local water sources.
Subject to a condition being imposed it is considered that the development would
comply with WLP Policies W4A and W4B.
8.
CONCLUSION
The principle of composting is supported by the National Waste Strategy 2007,
PPS10, RSS Policy WM1 (Waste Management Objectives) and WLP Policy W3A
(Best Practicable Environmental Option), which broadly advocate the sustainable
use of resources and the movement of waste up the waste hierarchy.
Essex County Council’s Waste Capacity Gap Report 2010 has indicated a future
need for composting facilities and the proposal site is supported by the Waste
Disposal Authority, particularly in light of the closure of a composting facility in
Brentwood.
The compost product would be used on the adjacent organic farmland, in
compliance with the requirements of EFDLPA Policy E12A (Farm Diversification).
It is considered that the proposals represent inappropriate development in the
Green Belt, however very special circumstances exist to outweigh the harm
caused by inappropriateness, and any other harm, in the form of the need for the
compost product in the operation of the adjacent organic farm, as well as the
locational need for the facility which is supported by the Waste Disposal Authority.
This is in compliance with PPG2, EFDLPA Policy GB2A (Development in the
Green Belt), WLP Policy W10E (Development Control) and WLP Policy W7B
(Outdoor Composting).
The proposed access improvements aim to improve visibility splays at the site
access to an appropriate standard for the proposed vehicle movements (20) and
are supported by the Highway Authority, in compliance with WLP Policies W4C
(Access) and W10E (Development Control) and EFDLPA Policy ST4 (Road
Safety).
It is further considered that amenity impacts relating to noise, odour, dust, litter,
pests and visual should be adequately controlled through either the Waste
Management Licence or planning conditions, in accordance with WLP Policies
W7B (Outdoor Composting) and W10E (Development Control) and EFDLPA
Policy RP5A (Adverse Environmental Impacts).
DR/26/11
19
In addition, existing and proposed planting would assist in visually
screening/softening the development in landscape terms, in compliance with
EFDLPA Policies CP2 (Protecting the Quality of the Rural and Built Environment)
and GB7A (Conspicuous Development) and EFDLP Policy LL2 (Inappropriate
Rural Development).
Conditions could also be imposed to control flooding and water pollution to
Environment Agency standards.
Bioaerosol issues are appropriately dealt with by the Environment Agency.
Overall, in light of the grant of planning permission ref ESS/06/07/EPF, which had
more impact than the development associated with the current application due to
greater vehicle movements and a requirement for larger scale highway
improvements, it is considered that there are no new material planning
considerations why planning permission should not be granted.
9.
RECOMMENDED
That planning permission be granted subject to conditions covering the following
matters:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
COM3 – Compliance with submitted details
HOUR1 – Hours of working (0700-1800 hours Mon-Fri, 0900 – 1600
hours Saturdays, 1000 – 1600 hours Sundays).
Scheme for monitoring the source if waste to ensure it is derived from
the East of England region submitted within 1 month of permission.
No more than 20% of waste to be derived from outside of Essex and
Southend.
COMP1 - Restriction to 25,000 tpa of green waste only.
No more than 20% of processed compost to be exported.
POLL1 – Surface and foul water drainage submitted within 1 month of
permission.
Details of storage lagoon submitted within 1 month of permission.
VIS2 – Stockpile heights no more than 3m.
HIGH6 – Lorry sheeting.
HIGH1 - Highway works to be completed within 6 months of date of
permission.
HIGH5 – Vehicle movement limits (20 movements (10 in 10 out)).
HIGH4 – Prevention of mud and debris on highway.
HIGH12 – Vehicle turning areas.
HIGH3 – Surfacing/Maintenance of access road.
LAND2 – Replacement landscaping.
NSE1 - Noise Limits
NSE3 – Monitoring Noise Levels
ECO3 – Protection of Breeding Birds
BACKGROUND PAPERS
DR/26/11
20
Consultation replies
Representations
Ref: P/DC/Shelley Bailey/ESS/20/11/EPF
LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION
EPPING FOREST – North Weald and Nazeing
EPPING FOREST – Ongar and Rural
DR/26/11
21